CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:

Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.

To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.

Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.

When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.

This is taking a child's life. The child is at an age were it is fully functional. i think that if the girl makes the mistake of getting pregnant she should not take it out on the baby. People also should remember they have family and adoption programs.

What about rape cases then? Did the girl want to get herself pregnant, or are you one of the rightists who think that it's the woman's fault for wearing revealing clothing and getting herself raped? Also, what if the baby is endangering the mother. Should she have to die just so a baby can be born (considering it is even alive)?

An unborn human organism is not fully functional as it is literally dependent upon the body of another being. Whether there are alternatives to abortion is immaterial to whether abortion itself should be an option.

They're not classes as children though, it is a fetus. No pain, feeling or consciousness especially when it's still an embryo. The mother's life should always be put before that of an unborn child. The physical pain and trauma of pregnancy is not worth it just to give up the child to adoption. It is also not fair to lump the unwanted child on family.

Though I am curious. What of reasons like rape, young mothers and medical reasons? Do you still think abortion is wrong?

Right. Let's call it what is it, abortion. Murder is the purposfully killing of another human. Not a fetus.

I would of course know if I got killed now that I'm at my age. But a fetus isn't even aware of itself or even pain. So whether it lives or dues it will never no the difference until it's brain actually starts getting self awareness. I don't remember anything before the age of 2.

Death is the end so yes, me dying would put me out of reality. Nothing else would matter because guess what... I am dead.

How do you know you are in reality now? Are you real, or are you just something like a hologram produce by chemical fizzes with no purpose or meaning? If death is the end of your existence, then you are not real and there is no reason to believe anything you say and no value in anything you do.

I think you should have stayed in the womb and remained nobody forever, instead of coming out and being a person who is condemned to die, i.e,, to be aborted

You are being aborted and you deserve it as you think you were worthless before you were born and you think it was okay to kill you then.....so you are getting what you deserve and if you don't find God's mercy to be pardoned you are going to wake up in the fire of Hell wishing abortion had ended your existence.

Right. I have no idea what you mean by any of those deluded rambles but your obviously not going to take this debate seriously.

Death is the end. You must be religious which is why you think we carry on. We are in reality when we are alive and death is the end. You can deny that all you want. Everything comes to an end and there is no point in denying that out of fear.

So do you actually have an argument to defend your position or are you just going to try and attack me?

Right. You have a mental block, a wall you have set up in your mind behind which you think you can keep God out of your life.....and the wall is crumbling to expose a fool. If you step out in front of that wall and ask God for mercy based on the fact that He died for you, so your sins can be covered by His blood and you don't have to pay in Hell, you will find mercy and the wall you are trying to hide behind will no longer matter.

Get your religious crap out of my face. I used to be Christian and I have never felt more free since I left the faith. How a debate about abortion turned to you saying how I am a fool for not believing in a make believe man in the sky, I don't know. Until you have solid proof you can show yourself the door on that subject.

If you have nothing else to prove your stance on abortion this debate is done.

You've placed liars on a pedestal, liars who are dirty and want you to be dirty as the more they can convince themselves that all are dirty, the more they feel justified to be dirty. Do you want to be dirty forever?

Prove that you have the right to exist outside of the fire of Hell. That is your job. If you say you don't have to prove that you have the right to exist outside of Hell, well just wait until you are blue in the face and quit wasting your time with me.

You obviously didn't read what I said. Whatever, stay in your closed deluded mind, it's no skin off my back. I really couldn't give two shits if you think I'm going to the land of make believe when I die.

Because I do not need to and that should not matter to you. You seem to care a lot about where I go after I die, I'll just tell you to stop because I don't care. If in the unlikely event heaven and hell do exist I'll happily take my place in hell. Even if god existed he's not a Good god and I would never follow him.

Don't mind him if you don't feel like engaging. You can just tell him to debate with me, Dermot, Cartman or anyone from my allies list - we've shown him multiple times that he's a worthless addition on a debate site and now he's too frightened to engage with any of us.

Stain is too boring at his work, and began at doing it again, it seems. It just means that destroying his arguments is a redundant affair, so you don't need to engage with him even if he seems too stubborn at it if you don't want to.

As he's too boring, I'm not really looking at what he does, and join in when I incidentally find him annoying others.

Because you are a sinner, you are dying. Because you are dying, you need to be saved. Your sins separate you from God, and there is no place for sinners but in the fire of Hell if they are not kept under God's mercy. He shed His blood to covers your sins so you can be forgiven. If you insist on trampling His blood under your feet as if it is not for you, then you will stand before the One who would have been your Savior and He will be your Judge and you will be cast away forever in your sin in the fire of Hell.

Jesus died for our sins, conquered death, and lives to be the Savior of all who put their trust in Him and the Judge of all who will not.

We are all dying, that's life :) I am glad to not be associated with that glorified monster. It's a shame that when you die, you will eventually learn the truth but you will be dead so you'll never know if how you've used your life was worth it or not.

I'm only telling you how you can be saved from your sins......if you don't want to be saved, then don't believe Jesus Christ is God the Savior who conquered death, and don't ask God in the name of Jesus to save you from the penalty of sin, and you won't be forgiven, you wont be saved, and you will be lost and dying forever in Hell. Because God loves you, He gives you the freedom to reject His love and go your own way, all the way, dying and lost forever in Hell's fire. You are making your choice, you announced it quite rudely and I quit reading your posts. There's nothing I can do for you but to tell you the truth, preach the good news (the gospel) of Jesus Christ, and walk away. Your choice of death over life is your choice, and you sure can't say God never tried to talk you into being reasonable.

You call saying "if you reject me you go to hell" a freedom? That's a religion based on blackmail. You only get redemption if you love me, it's like a clingy ex. If he really loved his subjects like a "father" then freedom would allow rejection without much consequence. You barely have a choice with what you've just spouted.

I digress though, it's a good thing he's not real. I don't believe the words of a brainwashed troll. Have a good day :)

You are dying in your sin, your sin separates you from God, and He has made the way for you to be reconciled to Him but you want to go your own way so in your sin you will go to Hell. That is your choice. You are fighting against your own life.

God loves you and wants you to have the desire of your heart. You want to go your own way, so God is letting you go your own way. It's not Him who is not loving, it is you who is self-centered and hateful toward God. God gives you the freedom to go your own way because he loves you. He will not force you to love Him, He will lovingly allow you to do what you want which is to go away from Him...so onward you go through the fog of death into the fire of Hell where sin belongs, separated from God forever by your own choice.

Hahhaha.......you want the freedom to reject God and act like a devil with no consequences? So you think it's unfair that you have to die? It's you who is blinded to reality, thinking you can should be able to get off the hook without consequences when in reality you are paying the price of sin already dying.

The devil has you blinded, and you are willfully going along with the devil because you love your sin more than life, so you go on flying like a moth enjoying itself as it plummets into the fire.

Somebody talked you into setting up a mental block wall in your mind, and they are fooling you into believing you can keep God on the other side of that wall and He can't bother you, can't tell you want to do or not to do, so you feel like you are free of Him when in reality you are in prison of death and only God can set you free through Jesus Christ who took your place in death to pull you up out of it in His resurrection....but you won't believe, will you? You will insist on upholding your mental block wall as long as you can, and when it crumbles you think you will be happy or content in Hell? You're insane.

I suggest you quit responding to my posts, because you don't want to be saved and you don't want to hear about where you are going.

God wants to save you and give you eternal life in Heaven. If you say "no, I'll go my own way", then you end up in Hell by your own choice of rejecting God's love. He died for you as the Son of God, God who took on a body like yours to pay your price in death, and if you think it is nothing He did for you, and you think you will escape His wrath against your sin which He died for when you are rejecting His love, you are making a fatal mistake and you deserve to burn in Hell as a sinner forever......and you will if you don't get saved by God the Savior, Jesus Christ.

I do not read your material as you have been repeatedly crude, rude, and profane. I don't like garbage coming into my brain through my eyes, your posts are full of garbage.

Sometimes I carelessly read something in your post as they often remain on my notifications and I find myself reading from you when before I avoided looking due to your record of rabid animal type rationale.

Then I might pick out a phrase or sentence of yours and respond to it. I really do feel sorry for you, you need to hear the truth, and if it seems maybe I can get a ray of light through your darkness by directly responding to something you say I am likely to give it a shot since I really don't want you to end up in the fire of Hell frying like an eternal sausage cursing God and your own existence forever.

You want to be against God, and you think he should let you be against Him without consequences? You think He should allow you to pollute His creation with your stinking attitude? You think He should just stop being God and let you make your own rules?

This is what pro abortion supporters do to deceive the pubic and hide the inhumanity of their policies.

1) Steer the abortion conversation to life of mother and rape pregnancies. Talk about a red hearing yet this is the first thing these pro choice people will do. The GOP has allowed these exceptions since abortion was legalized yet we still hear every day from the talking heads in the Democrat party about these extreme rare cases. Lie, deceive, exaggerate, etc. all to condition the electorate to think the GOP wil deny these extreme case abortions.(by the way, rape pregnancies can be prevented from day after pills that prevent conception)

2) The next thing they do is talk about the medical name of an unborn Baby..... Fetus. By using the name Fetus, they somehow believe it changes the status of the life growing inside the mother. Somehow in their twisted thinking, a Baby that has not yet traveled through the birth canal is somehow different than it is after it is has moved down that canal. WOW, TALK ABOUT DENIAL!

3) Next they will talk about the pain level of an unborn Baby. These pro abortion people have no clue the exact time a Baby can feel pain yet they latch on to absurd claims by pro abortion groups. I am only aware of the one video of an abortion procedure(gee what a shock) around the 1st trimester time frame. The baby clearly moves away from the implements of his death. Saying it is ok to kill an unborn Baby because it supposedly can not feel pain? It's a laughable excuse. When they vote for those on the Left, they are supporting late term abortions where the baby most definitely feel pain. The GOP has tried a number of times to prevent abortions past 20 weeks(unless extreme cases) only to have the Democrat party stop them each time.

4) The next thing they do is talk about the supposed hard life these unwanted children will have if we allow them to live. So in all their God like powers, they know the future of every Baby aborted? How many great people have come from poverty or foster homes, etc.? To be so arrogant to allow the deaths of innocent life because of some perceived hard life is beyond diabolical. That's like the Nazi mentality where we only want blond haired blue eyed people being born in Germany. In all their arrogance, they will deem who is deservng of life. To all the special needs kids? Your lives are not as valuable to many pro abortion people.

5) The next thing some pro choice people say is that they do not personally believe in abortion, but would afford other's the choice to end the lives of their unborn Babies. Gee, how nice of them. I always wonder how a person who personally believes that aborting his own Baby is wrong because it is ending a human life, can support allowing other babies to die. HYPOCRITE PHONEY!

6) After all the scare tactics and deceptions, their next step is to lie and say they do not support late term abortions for any reason. But when you show them that the Democrat party has become so radical to even support allowing a late term Baby born alive from a botched abortion to die, they are finally silent because even they can not come up with an excuse for such inhumanity and the fact that they elect these people.

I am not here trying to judge any woman who has had an abortion. I am speaking for the millons of future lives that the Left has sacrificed, all under the notion they are burdens to society. I've heard many people (racists) who bring up the great many Black Babies that would be born were it not for abortions. WOW! I think the support of abortions quite often has racist over tones.

There can be no excuse for taking an innocent life other than rare extreme cases. Our culture is dieing from such little respect for innocent human life. There are absolutely millions of parents waiting to adopt these unwanted babies.

The GOP has allowed these exceptions since abortion was legalized yet we still hear every day from the talking heads in the Democrat party about these extreme rare cases.

Except that is completely inconsistent with the rest of your arguments. Why would rape abortions be ok if a fetus (or baby before birth, that is) is on the exact same moral footing of any other human? Rape victims still aren't allowed to murder anyone.

(by the way, rape pregnancies can be prevented from day after pills that prevent conception)

That doesn't stop conception. It stops the zygote from implanting in the uterine wall. If life begins at conception, like you believe (something I find to be incredible arbitrary) then those pills are the same thing as abortions.

And I imagine because you care so deeply about this, you have contacted your representative to inform them that you want to make sure that this medication is readily available to women in case this is necessary?

2) The next thing they do is talk about the medical name of an unborn Baby..... Fetus. By using the name Fetus, they somehow believe it changes the status of the life growing inside the mother.

When does a sperm and egg turn into a baby? How is that any less arbitrary than the moment of birth?

I have clarified my position many times in regards to what you are asking.

Yes, I do not agree with rape abortions because that baby deserves life no matter who it's father. There is always adotion if the baby reminds the mother of the rape.

I am going by what doctors say about the medication that can be used to prevent "CONCEPTION" soon after a rape. If they are wrong about this, then I am against it.

I support life of mother abortions because it saves a life and the mother and doctor would have to make that terrible decision.

The reason I speak to all these extreme case abortions is because the GOP DOES allow those exceptions on their compromise bills. When you listen to Democrats, they constantly use fear tactics to infer that these extreme case abortions would be outlawed.

I don't agree with all extreme case abortions, but if I can prevent the vast vast vast vast majortiy of abortions done purely for elective birth control, then I will vote for the GOP and take the lessor of two evils.

Yes, I do not agree with rape abortions because that baby deserves life no matter who it's father.

This is where your argument becomes sick. The life quality of the mother should always come before an unborn baby with no feelings and no consciousness of what's happening. They don't know a thing. A rape victim should not be forced to keep the child they were wrongfully stuck with. Abortion should always be a choice. Rape is a serious act that causes severe mental trauma which can be triggered by said child.

There is also the issue that if the mother has been forced to keep the child because of ridiculous laws then the rapist can demand visiting and this keeps the rapist in the victims life which is an even worse outcome.

I don't have much to say over adoption. I don't think the physical trauma is worth it to only give the child up. Especially when the adoption process really isn't great.

Severe mental trauma? The rape has already caused that mental trauma. Do you have any idea the guilt and shame women experience after abortions? Do you want to add that on to the trauma of rape?

THE FACTS ARE that a woamn can go down to the hospital a day or so after a rape and prevent conception!!!!!!

CAN YOU GRASP THAT SIMPLE FACT? Ask yourself why we hear so little about this simple answer to prevent rape pregnancies?

The reason is obvious. That would take away one of the Left's main ludicrous excuses to keeping abortion on demand legal.

How sick is it that the Left would keep women in the dark about how to prevent a rape pregnancy. They are willing to put women through all this agony just so they can keep their sick excuses for abortion.

Where's the education for women going through a rape? Where are the commercials telling each women exactly what to do after a rape?

IT'S COMMON SENSE THAT IF A WOMAN IS RAPED SHE SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED A THOUSANDS TIMES WHAT TO DO!!!! It should be engraned in every woman's head what to do.

Pro abortion people have no conscience for anything but their convienence to have their one night hook ups, ad an easy way out of what they created with their pormiscuous lifestyles. This is the facts of the matter and it has nothing to do with Rape.

Theres a lot of emotion in your argument and not much fact. But the fact of the matter is, YOUR opinion should not dictate whether women have the choice or not.

If the women does not want the child in the first place the mental strain of abortion would be less. It would also mean the women can heal better without having a constant rape reminder running around. This can also have bad effects on the child itself.

How is this preventative contraception any different from abortion to you? It is destroying a (in your option) human life before it has a chance to live. It might be named differently but it is still abortion.

With rape, it is told to every women. Don't go out alone, don't dress like this or that etc. But it doesn't always help, you can be trained in self defense but that doesn't always stop you from being overpowered. There is no one telling men (and women, I won't discriminate) to not rape someone though and then the victims get blamed because of this. And then what? They still have to go through the pain of having a child because of someone's opinion? No. That's just wrong.

I do have conscience, mine just lies with those who are actually living and not with that of the unborn.

Those examples are a completely different kettle of fish. Me thinking the right for a women to dictate what happens to her own body is a good thing, does not at all mean I support the Holocaust or Slavery. I have no idea where you drew those conclusions but they are ridiculous to say the least.

But you know, since your argument is purely emotional and all you want to do is make me out to have a bad conscience we'll use your logic.

So you don't care for a woman's right to her own body? You think it's completely fair for a rape victim to be forced to keep that child or for medical reasons then having the child would likely kill the mother or severely damage her body, then she still has to keep it? I'm sorry but I value the life of the already living rather than the unborn. You can call me evil all you want, but the choice should always be there. It is their body and so they should get the choice.

You know we have the same arguments because prochoice people believe this right? That statement proves nothing because every prolife supporter also gives me the same arguments. But you're never going to see reason or even try to. In this situation the mother's body is more important than that of the fetus. A fetus that does not think and does not feel, if will never know the difference.

I was simply using your logic against you. Ignoring what's been said and repeating myself.

Of course legalized abortion advocates use tactics. So do illegalized abortion advocates. That's just how the game is played. At any rate, I diverge from your representation...

1. I'm fine with all cases and am upfront about it.

2. Call it whatever you like. I'm not overly concerned with the semantics myself. The unborn lack self-concept, and that is my litmus for personhood.

3. Not relevant to my position, so I don't bring it up.

4. Not an argument I deploy, and I'm inclined to agree with your general point here (although it's not really comparable to the German Holocaust).

5. Leaning loosely libertarian myself I don't think this sort of reasoning is problematic, but as with the rest it's not an argument I use.

6. I'm fine with late term abortions.

How do you think our culture is dying as a result of legalized abortions? Abortion has been practiced as long as culture as been around, so it's not immediately evident to me what material threat this poses.

So you are telling me that the baby a few minutes after birth has self-concept? Get real, it is no different from before traveling down the birth canal except for the fact the Doctor has not yet spanked it. That's your determination of life?

It's sad we have people who are so selfish to sacrifice even our most innocent viable late term babies for sake of convienence.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I limited my remarks to the unborn since that its the immediate object of discussion, but I am equally fine with a baby that was just born being killed. Really, I find it permissible up until the point where science suggests a reasonable probability that infants have a sense of self.

Such droll ad hominem. And, I might add, a fine display of cowardice in the face of an argument you can't actually repudiate. You may have forgotten your opinion of me, but I remember exactly how well you run away.

there have actually been cases when the child was killed after being birthed. so please explain the difference in killing new born child and killing a child in the womb? either way your killing a human making it murder either way.

A fetus may be alive, but so is a baby chicken. You know what we do with male baby chickens? We grind them up and put them in chicken nuggets. You don't care that every day, thousands of innocent animals die. Why are human lives so different to you? Whether or not you agree with making abortion illegal, a woman should reserve the right to decide what to do with her own body.

Being alive does not automatically confer rights on to the living thing. Pigs are alive. Corn is alive. Bacteria are alive. They don't have a protected right to life.

Ending life, even a human life, is permissible under other circumstances even under the legal definition of murder. Self-defense, non-negligent accidental killing, etc. are exempt so there is no rational or legal reason that abortion could not also be an exception under law (and, indeed, it is in many places that otherwise outlaw murder).

The concepts in question are not whether a fetus is alive, but whether it is a human life, whether those taking it know they are taking a human life, and whether they are justified in knowingly taking a human life.

Most arguments stop at the first concept as people do not generally agree on what constitutes a human life (to the extent that rights are warranted). If everyone agreed that the fetus is a human life, then doctors would know that a human life is what they are taking. Whether an exception is made for this kind of taking of life depends on what we consider justification for such taking. Most abortions are not a matter of self defense, negligence, or non negligent manslaughter. While some abortions would meet current criteria for justification in taking human life, most would not.

Yes, I know. I was being a bit fictitious and taking OP at their literal word for kicks.

Honestly, though, I regard the dispute over whether the fetus is a human life as a distraction rather than an actual hurdle in the discussion. It is generally a way of sneaking in the conclusion for both sides, which is why the conversation so rarely moves beyond that point IMO. Not an uncommon practice in human behavior, really, but interesting to me in this case because of obviously blatant it is while people still maintain innocence over the matter. It's a great case study in human duplicity...

Regardless of how you classify the unborn, if left unmolested and barring a miscarriage, they would grow up to become a person. You are doing worse than simply killing them. You are robbing them of a life that they will never have. All of the experiences, the joys of life that they will never know. Anyone who supports abortion is a monster of the worst kind, and you will answer to God for every life you have taken. There is a special place in Hell reserved for you. And whether you believe it or not, it will happen. Count on it.

Regardless of how you classify the unborn they lack the necessary ontology to comprehend themselves or prospective loss, so there is no person for harm to adhere in. It is only in imagining an uncertain and unprovable hypothetical future person that you can conceive of harm existing, but as that person does not exist there is no person for the harm you speak of to adhere in. My point stands, and threatening me with beliefs I don't share is ineffectual, invalid argumentation.

By every medical definition, a fetus is alive. If you abort it, it's murder. And God will deal with you whether or not you believe in Him. You've been warned and will have no excuse. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of an angry God. I pity you.

Repeating yourself isn't an argument. Neither is continuing to threaten me with your fairy tale. I already covered this. Yes, it is a live. So is grass. Being alive is insufficient to be a person. Self-concept is requisite for that. A fetus lacks that. Therefore, it is not murder.

Reductionist; I think that consciousness is a material state. In this particular case, one that does not manifest in the human organism until later in its development. Atheistic dualism strikes me as essentially an iteration of (Western) theistic narratives; the 'mind' is the 'soul' by another name.

Abortion can be proved illegal it is a self-incrimination to a crime. It is not illegal due to the fact it is a confession and as such can still be proved to be illegal. Why abortion can be justified as a crime is the fact the self-incrimination has not limit or no legal representation in the public. The incrimination is not controlled by the woman making the original confession.

First: Gender Specific Amputation can be a confession it simple does not have the self-incrimination in place.

Second: Abort means to stop as a pause. The process aborted often can be restarted. If and when the process is to be stopped indefinitely the title is changed to a termination. Here again is the Constitutional exposure to the self-incrimination being made. We all know the official stop being made is in fact a termination. Again Female Specific Amputation describes a removal of something only a woman might have medically removed. No self-incrimination no direct incrimination of the public to a possible crime.

The "what if a women was raped" has become a banality for you pro-choicers, and it does not justify killing the baby. If a woman claims to be suffering mentally, she can put the child up for abortion or hand it over to the government.

If a woman willingly had sex, and did not choose to wear a ring, it is her mistake, there is no justification for aborting an unborn child.

We regularly hold that it is legitimate for the state to restrict personal autonomy where a person is acting towards a body other than their own. Whether one regards the fetus at any stage as a person does not alter the fact that it is nevertheless some form of organic life, and one with a not insignificant probability of developing into what everyone would eventually identify as a person. That we could just as easily question why having protected intercourse or being abstinent are therefore not problems on the same line of reasoning, that does not actually answer the question of why it is not wrong in this case.

An assertion to a right of autonomy on its own does not answer the question either because there is no right that we treat as absolute. We regularly hold violations of bodily autonomy by the state as legitimate - forced vaccinations, incarceration, etc. - which demonstrates clearly that bodily autonomy is not an incontrovertible right.

The bottom line for me on the whole question is that I think it should always be a woman's choice no matter what different countries or states deem legal or illegal ; the fetus is indeed some form of organic life and is reliant on the woman for sustenance over which it has no right , should the so called rights of the fetus trump those of the woman ?

I stated my reasons as in it should always be a woman's choice to make the choice regardless of what you or I think she is the one carrying the fetus she should be the one to decide whether to abort or not , so my rationale is that it's a woman's body that carries the fetus so therefore it should be her choice whether to abort or not regardless of what others think on the matter .

There are in fact more than one absolute right as recognised by international human rights laws why should this be any different ?

Description

Article 7 ICCPR Freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

Articles 8(1) & 8(2) ICCPR Freedom from slavery and servitude

Article 11 ICCPR Freedom from imprisonment for inability to fulfil a contractual obligation

International human rights law recognises that few rights are absolute and reasonable limits may be placed on most rights and freedoms. Absolute rights, however, are distinguishable from non-absolute rights .

Absolute rights cannot be limited for any reason. No circumstance justifies a qualification or limitation of absolute rights. Absolute rights cannot be suspended or restricted, even during a declared state of emergency.

Your rationale is incomplete because you never explain why proximity to the fetus necessitates your conclusion. We regularly permit and even endorse the exercise of state or other authority over the immediate bodily autonomy of persons in pursuit of superseding interests. It is therefore unclear why the woman's greater proximity to an adjacent body should necessarily confer to her an absolute right of choice against all possible competing interests.

There is a difference between an absolute right in theory and an absolute right in practice. The ICCPR, like all agreements of its kind, is effectively idealistic posturing. "[It's] widely formulated reservations [...] essentially render ineffective all Covenant rights which would require any change in national law to ensure compliance [...]. No real international rights or obligations have thus been accepted" [1]. Because they are purely human constructions, rights actually exist only insofar as they are practiced and there is no absolute right in this sense. (Notably, even if there were this would not mean that the right to an abortion is or should also be an absolute right.)

Nor would the existence of any absolute right necessitate that it should exist. Your appeal to governmental authority does appropriately identify the body with the most power to actualize rights, but confuses this to mean that the rights which government chooses to actualize therefore should be actualized. While a governmental authority may hypothetically have the requisite capacity to enforce an absolute right, that does not mean that it's doing so is defensible. Therefore, even if the ICCPR (or similar document) represented absolute rights in practice it would not constitute a rationale that those rights should exist absolutely (or more generally that the idea of an absolute right is sound).

It is mere tautology that absolute rights cannot be restricted, but whether absolute rights do or should exist are other questions entirely. You have not really begun to answer either.

A woman should not be denied the right to control her own body proximity of the fetus would deny her this if abortion was illegal .

In my initial comments in this argument I said abortion should be legal in all societies , I believe it should be a woman's decision to do what she wants to do with her own body regarding abortion ; if abortion was illegal in all societies that would grant the fetus rights which trump those of the woman and indeed grant the fetus an absolute right denied the woman ?

I was not appealing to governmental authority I was countering your statement regarding absolute rights, I can only do that by citing what are deemed and agreed to be absolute rights under international law .

International human rights law recognises that few rights are absolute and reasonable limits may be placed on most rights and freedoms. Absolute rights, however, are distinguishable from non-absolute rights according to International human rights which is why I gave the list of what are deemed absolute rights under international law .

Absolute rights cannot be limited for any reason. No circumstance justifies a qualification or limitation of absolute rights. Absolute rights cannot be suspended or restricted, even during a declared state of emergency.

The bottom line is that under international law there are what are termed absolute rights ,so yes they do exist and that's what I stated initially which answered your question .

A woman should not be denied the right to control her own body proximity of the fetus would deny her this if abortion was illegal.

You keep claiming this, but still have not presented a coherent argument for it. As I already explained you have an incomplete rationale because you have not shown why her carrying the fetus necessarily confers an absolute right to her. You have not addressed this response, so it stands and you therefore have no basis for your position.

In my initial comments in this argument I said abortion should be legal in all societies [...] if abortion was illegal in all societies that would grant the fetus rights which trump those of the women and indeed grant the fetus an absolute right denied the woman.

Presenting an opposite extreme does not make your position any less extreme, or any less unfounded. Even if it were plausible that all societies would make abortion illegal, on the meager basis of your argumentation that would not be obviously problematic (only by your conviction).

I was not appealing to governmental authority I was countering your statement regarding absolute rights, I can only do that by citing what are deemed and agreed to be absolute rights under international law .

I recognize why you brought it up; I was merely being clear about what your observation could and could not get you (which, really, is nothing at all).

International human rights law recognises that few rights are absolute and reasonable limits may be placed on most rights and freedoms. [...] Absolute rights cannot be suspended or restricted, even during a declared state of emergency.[...] The bottom line is that under international law there are what are termed absolute rights ,so yes they do exist and that's what I stated initially which answered your question .

This is a completely non-responsive reassertion of your claim, which I have already repudiated at length. You haven not addressed my counter-evidence, nor my counter-rationale. Until you do, both stand and your argument falls. There is no such thing as an absolute right in practice, even if it exists in theory. Even if there were such a thing, that does not mean there should be. Even if there were such a thing and should be such a thing, that would not even mean that abortion should also be an absolute right. I rest my case until such time as you actually bother to address it.

My position is certainly clear and the argument is coherent ; I stated before that a woman should have complete autonomy over her own body and what she chooses to do with it , it is up to her entirely how she deals with the fetus ; the fetus is reliant on the woman for sustenance over which it has no right .

The bottom line is that the choice should always be there for women in all societies anything else is a form of tyranny .

My observation was not put forward to get me anything but merely to correct you as you seemed to assume that there were no absolute rights when in fact there are under international law .

My claim was that there are what is termed absolute rights under international law , you merely gave your opinion regarding the matter which has absolutely no bearing on what are termed absolute rights under international law .

Your counter evidence and counter claim are merely your opinion and have absolutely no bearing on what lawmakers term absolute rights so I dismiss them totally as your rationale is faulty to say the least ; you childishly state even if there was such a thing as an absolute right that doesn't mean there should be and abortion should not be and this is just because you say so .

Your points were indeed addressed your failure to recognise that is something you need to work on .

[...] and the argument is coherent; I stated before that a woman should have complete autonomy over her own body and what she chooses to do with it , it is up to her entirely how she deals with the fetus;

I have already explained why your (earlier) argument lacks coherence. You still have not directly addressed that counter-analysis, despite repeated opportunity to do so. It is not an unfair conclusion at this point that you cannot do so.

the fetus is reliant on the woman for sustenance over which it has no right.

This is a new argument. Previously you were arguing that the woman has a right because she carries the fetus. Now you are arguing that because the fetus is reliant upon the woman it has no rights. However, you give absolutely no reason to suppose that reliance upon another means one has no rights.

Not only is this an incomplete argument (again), but common social and legal practice directly undermine your unsubstantiated assertion that reliance means one has no rights. Parents and guardians are regularly held socially and legally accountable for the well-being of their reliant minors precisely on account of those minors' reliance upon them. It is their reliant status which confers rights and protections to them, rather than causing them to have no rights at all. Therefore, it is very clearly the case that reliance not only does not revoke rights but creates them.

Your counter evidence and counter claim are merely your opinion [...]

My counter evidence was from a report by the United Nations. You could only construe that as being my opinion if you are being deliberately disingenuous or lack elementary critical thinking skills (and I know where I'd put my money).

The rest of my claim was substantiated by an argument concerning (among other things) the distinction between theory and practice, which you have never addressed. Asserting that it is only my opinion fails to demonstrate in what way that opinion is unsound or invalid.

[...] and have absolutely no bearing on what lawmakers term absolute rights so I dismiss them totally as your rationale is faulty to say the least [...]

Despite your protestations, you clearly are using your earlier rationale to put forward an argument here. This is the very appeal to governmental authority which I preemptively addressed, and you may refer to the argument I have already made in response to this.

you childishly state even if there was such a thing as an absolute right that doesn't mean there should be and abortion should not be and this is just because you say so .

The existence of an absolute right does not automatically mean that it should exist, not because I say so but because logically there is no reason that the latter follows from the former. Again, you are arguing from tautologies that presume your conclusion without ever proving anything.

I also never said that abortion should not be, and have already explicitly said I support legalized abortion. What I actually said was that even if there are absolute rights it does not necessarily follow that abortion should also be an absolute right. That is, again, not just because I say so but because the laws of logic require such connections be proved.

Your points were indeed addressed your failure to recognise that is something you need to work on

No it's not . You actually need to refer to the last post where I brought this point up as in my original statement on the issue ......

The bottom line for me on the whole question is that I think it should always be a woman's choice no matter what different countries or states deem legal or illegal ; the fetus is indeed some form of organic life and is reliant on the woman for sustenance over which it has no right , should the so called rights of the fetus trump those of the woman ? ............

This is at the top of the debate so how you make out its new is beyond me .

You are now comparing the reliance of minors to those of a fetus , also you now unfairly claim that I'm saying reliance means one has no rights ,where did I state that ?

The UN prints many reports so your appeal to authority is meant to achieve what ?

You keep denying the existence of absolute rights while international and European law states the complete opposite to what you claim and have charters of absolute rights , so maybe you could take a case against both bodies and argue your case about theory and practice and plead with them to change the term absolute to suit you ?

It's rather amusing you make a remark about critical thinking skills while you seem to fall short in this category .

Regarding absolute rights , yes I think abortion should be one I've stated my reasons ad nauseum and connections have been proven as in my statement from the start that a woman should have full autonomy over her own body .

That was not an ad hominem it was a genuine comment on your failure to recognise what I actually said , instead of what you think I said .

Yes , I said ask them as I don't presume to know the minds of American lawmakers , by your own admittance you don't either as you claimed they don't know , so yes it seems your conclusion is accurate based on American law anyway

I'm deeply honoured that American lawmakers would deem me an appropriate authority to hold forth on American law , I would graciously acknowledge that their opinion on such matters would surely be the most profitable route for any further enquiries

Why I think what I think on the matter I've gone through several times and indeed you've heard my opinions before on the matter , I'm not appealing to authority as I've explained my position ad nauseum on CD and I've no intention of doing so again .

Ps . so I did , 👮👮 those pesky American spelling police are everywhere 😢

I've been on here for a few years now. I've explained the underlying reasons behind my positions multiple times. Do you suppose that next time you ask me to support my position with reasons, I can just refer you to previous, unspecified times that I supported my position with reasons?

If you've already answered this question, or if someone in a position of authority has answered this question, you can just disregard this post.

Well you and I had a lengthy exchange on this very topic before also we had a lengthy exchange on rights and privileges only a short while ago ; my position regarding a mother and fetus and rights regarding both is indeed stated simply in this whole exchange in an earlier reply to Jace .

You've already admitted that American authories cannot answer your question so yes I could disregard your post and yes I've answered it elsewhere , but just for clarity I will again state my position......

You ask ....Why do the rights of the baby impose responsibilities on the parents after it's outside the mom, but not before?

A fetus can't survive on its own. It is fully dependent on its mother's body, unlike born human beings.

A "right to life" doesn't imply a right to use somebody else's body. People have the right to refuse to donate their organs, for example, even if doing so would save somebody else's life.

A "right to life" is, at the end of the day, a right to not have somebody else's will imposed upon your body.

Kicking ass and takin names with superior reasoning, just like always. Good job on this one Dermot. After appealing to only the best moral authority, the US Governmnet, you handily dispatched with my question without ever even answering it.

With no question answered, no challenge met, you walk away victorious. And the icing on the cake was that irrelevant jab at the end. Even though it didn't make any sense in the context of this conversation, it really worked for you. I felt about this big.

I really don't know what you're ranting about you seem to get very annoyed when you don't get the answer you desire .

I wouldn't call the US government a moral authority and again I never appealed to authority , I stated my position but like a child you reply with sarcasm .

You've posted rather a long rant saying nothing of any significance your failure to understand basic English leaves you in your state of confusion , maybe if you read my reply again you may see your question was answered adequately .

You are by your own admission not very good at this I remember with amusement your confusion over rights and prviliges 😊

No your failure to understand what I wrote as opposed to what you think I wrote got you again .

Indeed and this from the man who quotes and appeals to the author of freakecnomics to make his point in our last encounter .... you're a parrot

I think you may be actually making progress mentally as normally you finish your egotistical rants by calling those who disagree with you retards , congrats on your development and credit to your ' minder '

Progressive there is a reason the Left wants every illegal in this country they need a replacement for the 55 million human lives they have eliminated with abortion. Left has to get their voter base from somewhere !

Yes , you have a 'gift ' for accusing others of exactly what you do repeatedly as in parrot the opinion of others ; your last appeal to authority was regards your swimming pool and guns scenario 🤔

Looking over some of your previous postings I note you constantly appeal to authority as in

......Morality is based on socially instilled fear of negative future consequences.

Morality is instilled based on more than this. The “Moral Foundations” Theory, put forward by Jonathan Haidt and detailed in his book “The Rightious Mind”, provides an evolutionary foundation for moral intuitions that includes socially instilled values, but relies on a wider range of environmental pressures as well. If all moral intuitions come down to Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, or Sanctity; then social consequences are not sufficient to explain them all.......

No doubt that comes under the Amarel clause of " quoting a source for data "😂😂 you couldn't argue your case using your own reasoning so you use someone else's claims to say what you couldn't express ..... zing 💥

Really staggering isn't it Mint ? This guy claims to be a follower of Jesus yet practices and preaches hatred and ill will to others who disagree with his opinions ; I forgive him though as the unfortunate wretch would not be deemed the 'sharpest ' tool in any civilised society 😊

I support someone who just straight up doesn't agree with abortion, I support their right to believe that even if I don't. But to pray for death of a woman and her child as a means to punish you or anyone else shows a filthy soul and completely negates any show of concern for an unborn child to begin with. A person can disagree, that's fine, that's expected and on this site that's encouraged. But that? That's repulsive.

Yes I would hold similar views , an individual is entitled to their opinion whether I disagree or not ; Jeffrey is very immature and very opinionated and basically just a confused child seeking approval from the C D trolls who also mostly dismiss him

Now that I've told him about humans being ape-pig hybrids, he's even more stubborn.

It seems like a fine read, though, and bronto told me about it. I'm still worried about it being an elaborate prank or something... those aren't too hard to pull off like Dihydrogen Monoxide hoax and Flat Earth proofs... but phys.org reported twice on it, so it looks decent enough.

Come on, chimp, even if that were entirely true, I'd say it's childish at best.

Though since you're generally making absurd claims like being a ceo at a fish farm and having delusional blue chickens, or that you can bite off your ears... so I wouldn't be surprised if you said that. Jace would just be more willing to give you a great benefit of doubt.

Ah, no... But it doesn't matter. Both of them ought to be removed from the face of Earth.

We'll have the terrorists yield to my will. I'll try having them alive... but they generally seem too suicidal. Any that we get alive will be sent to the Purgatory and be cleaned there. Unlike normal lunatics, however, I'll be breaking them down completely, because we all know that they could otherwise later go on a killing spree or something.

Don't worry about that. I'm not going to do it completely alone, though, and am even willing to have a supporting role in the grand scheme. I'll still see to it that it's done.

For about how it isn't already done - I'm younger than you. As I said, it's inevitable anyway. Any religion unsafe for the state will be exterminated... if someone kind and paranoid is the one is the top, you'll be quickly disposed. If it's someone like me, you'll be made to yield.

So... you shouldn't be too cheerful about whether or not these are things "I know I can never achieve".

That... doesn't matter. You can put your head in sand all you want. It's too insignificant for concern... The lunatic you should feel honoured because I destroyed your position. (As long as I don't go into too much details of the plans here, it's all fine by me.)

Just... when it happens, you have no means of escape. There is death, but we all know that unsafe religions generally prohibit suicide.

I want to see whether your religions can put up a good show. (For now, I'm putting you all unsafe lunatics in a category marked "unsafe".) I'd be disappointed in humanity if they can't. (That is, incidentally, the part where our discussion about pope fits in.)

Try convincing me otherwise - there's nothing I hold dearer than reason. Not even the conventional theory of evolution, as you might remember (if, that is, you aren't savage enough to quickly forget it).

Right now, I'm rather insignificant for their attention, and as I said, I won't be sharing any details of the plan so it's merely a gamble on whether they want to risk a lot when they've no means to know whether the plan is any effective. Islamic terrorism is falling, and by the time it's revived, I'll be safer, enough to go make the offer to them and return unscathed. That's the prerequisite, anyway... all the moderates will be safe. I'd still like to think that I could handle things even when a gun's in my mouth, but I know that those wielding it are little more than zombie chimps.

Coming after me shall be detrimental to them from now, since it's a risky gamble, obviously.

I felt threatened for a while... but that was long ago. It was still nothing compared to my dislike for you unsafe lunatics, and they will speak and believe whatever I want them to. We aren't serving cupcakes in the Purgatory, after all.

You now spew out a pile of accusations without proof for what you claim which is so typical , I wonder if one day you will actually engage in debate as opposed to merely ranting ; I must be in good company because earlier you accused Richard Dawkins of being a liar and an idiot who speakers gibberish you also claimed Charles Darwin was an idiot ; rather amusingly you class yourself as a ' genius ' 🤔 You truly are a special kind of troll .

By merely claiming I'm evil you need to base your assertion on something , weren't you the one who wished death on my daughter indeed you pray for it .... now that's evil

You now spew out a pile of accusations without proof for what you claim which is so typical , I wonder if one day you will actually engage in debate as opposed to merely ranting ; I must be in good company because earlier you accused Richard Dawkins of being a liar and an idiot who speakers gibberish you also claimed Charles Darwin was an idiot ; rather amusingly you class yourself as a ' genius ' 🤔 You truly are a special kind of troll

Ah, that reminds me, I could prove from his claims that sub-saharan africans are savages and barbarians. Apparently, he pretended to not understand it (though I wouldn't be surprised if he couldn't... that just supports the conclusion, after all).

You see the difference is you're a hypocrite so Jesus was in fact talking about you and your type , remember I've schooled you before in the bible .

I've never lied about you I've told the truth about you as you're a compulsive liar who claims to own a record label , is owner of a fish farm and is a CEO ; you also said you could prove that the speed of light was ..... incorrect and you could prove it ( still waiting ) you claimed that you had considerable work written up disproving Evolution and that Richard Dawkins could not refute your findings ......

You're a compulsive liar and and you've just admitted your school friends ignore you , do you not see a pattern here ?

I've never lied about you I've told the truth about you as you're a compulsive liar who claims to own a record label , is owner of a fish farm and is a CEO ; you also said you could prove that the speed of light was ..... incorrect and you could prove it ( still waiting ) you claimed that you had considerable work written up disproving Evolution and that Richard Dawkins could not refute your findings ......

You are only dealing with extremes. I do not accept defenseless innocent babies to die, nor would I accept the death of a woman who may not have a choice in the matter or who may be terrified of the circumstances. I do not agree with abortion after the first trimester or a fully formed child. But if you're going to sit there with a pious attitude about your stance on abortion then you do not get to sit there and pray for a child's death and that of the mother as a means of petty vengeance without completely erasing any good intentions you had originally.

i disagree with someone killing someone. If the attacker dies with the victim, thats even not evil.

How twisted that logic is that you use to excuse yourself. What's scary is you continue to have zero remorse or desire to simply say you went too far, probably because you don't think you did and quite honestly that's the kind of extremism we all need to worry about. To pray for someone to experience the death of a child is sick.

I think you smoking too much. The vapour can't make you see the desktop/laptop screen well clear some and read comments well...you can continue afterwards, set your house on fire even, am not evil.

Well now you're just trying to pull out random nonsense. I don't smoke, never will. And there you go again, putting it out there that someone should suffer because they disagree with you. Kudos. You make SaintNow look like a Saint by comparison, I genuinely didn't think that could be done.

Why do you consistently miss the point which is what gives me as an individual the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body ?

You seem to think you have this right to tell a woman what she can do with her body what gives you this right ?

Incidentally you and others of your mindset assume by my statements I'm pro abortion while I have never stated my position either way .

Your final statement is so typical of the type of so called ' Christian ' on CD where you gleefully wish ill on people who disagree with your opinion , why can you never simply debate instead of resorting to insult and injury on those who hold differing opinions ?

Again you fail to comprehend what I simply asked as in , what gives you the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body ?

Refer to my question above ; yes you must wait on me to state either way otherwise you're assuming .

Your knowledge of the bible is truly atrocious and if that's the route you want to go I can actually demonstrate that god commands abortion in his name when it suits ; also didn't Jesus say something about judging others ?

Yes condemnation is the last defence of the coward who has no valid arguments on anything meaningful ......

I note with amusement you still haven't posted up your paper proving Evolution is nonsense , whys that ?

Again you fail to comprehend what I simply asked as in , what gives you the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body ?

You fail to comprehend a baby's body is different from a mother's.

She has right on her body yes(still limited to attempted suicide) but not on the baby's.

If she touches the child, she is a murderer.

If you consider a foetus an organ of a woman, ex.like heart, kidney,lungs.....which are not independent of her and therefore has absolute right over,

then when the foetus is killed, the woman should die also....you can't destroy your heart,lungs or etc. and expect to live.

Baby's can live in incubators and develop and live to even adulthood.

unlike........

yes you must wait on me to state either way otherwise you're assuming .

You have said enough, no need waiting, your position is apparent.

Your knowledge of the bible is truly atrocious

what is atrocious about " while in your mother's womb i knew you"?

and if that's the route you want to go I can actually demonstrate that god commands abortion in his name when it suits ; also didn't Jesus say something about judging others ?

lol. it's useless. God is not bound by the rules he sets for his creations.

No creation no rules.

Judging others? To say a baby deserves to die for your own convenience is the most atrocious judgement. You're like herod. And you know since jesus had been in such a position of threat before, he wouldn't want that on any other baby(of Gods promise)

Yes condemnation is the last defence of the coward who has no valid arguments on anything meaningful ......

Only courageous people can condemn their own sinful nature and of his brother's too. Such are mostly persecuted....takes courage.

Also i can not argue carnal minds because when you engage in a pig fight, you get your clean self muddy too.

Carnal minds always have their best setting a fight....rights, etc.

As i try to understand your language, i will begin to speak it and you will have one more soul to your army......

evil men.

I note with amusement you still haven't posted up your paper proving Evolution is nonsense , whys that ?

err......try harder.

By the way though i am not bringing anything up, i gave a brief part of it in two arguments with several points i would have elaborated on if i was actually wholly addressing it.

it actually turns out some people have already brought certain parts of it up at differnt places, even before dawkins(recently knew, and he answered in gibberish).

So we are clear you believe you have the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body ; also if a woman aborts how come no court in any civilised country will try her for murder ?

You said she is a murderer so why is she not charged as one ?

No , you're assuming what you think my position is .

I said .... your knowledge of the bible is atrocious and you type one line from the bible , why ?

Yes I know it's ok for your god to command abortion as he makes the rules yet you say Jesus disagrees with abortion but god can carry it out as he makes the rules , now that's funny the son of god disagrees with ..... god

You call me evil yet you wished my daughter had an abortion and then die in the process , and I'm the evil one 🤔

So Richard Dawkins addressed your arguments on Evolution by spouting gibberish , I find your claims like most your inane ramblings to be merely the result of an overactive imagination and not worthy of further commentary .

So we are clear you believe you have the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body ;

you read my previous comments again for clarity.

also if a woman aborts how come no court in any civilised country will try her for murder ?

where is civilised and where is uncivilised. Stop beating about the bush.

people go to court, courts don't go to people.

You said she is a murderer so why is she not charged as one ?

is there a tag on the face of people who have aborted children?

At work, how do you spot abortionists...

i'm not talking about constitutional laws....moral laws(you are currently on a different part of the world, how can you understand moral laws)

No , you're assuming what you think my position is .

so if you think i am wrongly speculating, why haven't you further clarified than just denying ,(because it's the same right?)

Jesus disagrees with abortion but god can carry it out as he makes the rules , now that's funny the son of god disagrees with ..... god

God can command abortion doesn't mean he is fan of it. God has commanded and supported wars which consists of killing of people, but is the God who rebuked abel for murder, rebuked david for killing his soldier.

God can command abortion in his own wisdom to prevent some generations he knows will be bring some kind of threat. Before they are born, he knows them.

God was about instant judgement until he sent his son.

Out of anger and hunger jesus commanded a tree to die.

Out of anger jesus destroyed properties of people selling in church(very 'un~jesus' like)

Jesus and/or God shared the same plan in the old testament and also shared a common plan in the new testament. Plan A , Plan B were carried out differently by the same people.

You call me evil yet you wished my daughter had an abortion and then die in the process , and I'm the evil one

I'm not begging your daughter to get pregnant and attempt an abortion.

But i know if that happens, you will support her abortion decision and that is when my prayer(that i haven't forwarded yet) sets in.

You want your daughter to kill your grand child....are you not evil?

and they both(murderer and victim) die, it's called justice, it's even.

So Richard Dawkins addressed your arguments on Evolution by spouting gibberish , I find your claims like most your inane ramblings to be merely the result of an overactive imagination and not worthy of further commentary .

I don't know if you read with your laptop upside down....thats your own cup of tea

Abortion should not be illegal for one reason; women have the right to choose what happens to their own bodies. Whatever your beliefs, you have to agree with that. The people who support abortion shouldn't have their choices taken away because of the other half of the population; if abortion was legal, the anti-abortion side of the population could simply choose not to have an abortion. Also, there are too many homeless, loveless children in this world. Unwanted pregnancies could result in abortions, which can actually be a mercy for the child, though the child isn't really a human at this point. People who want abortions usually end up giving their unwanted child to child services, or an orphanage, and the child suffers because of this. Personally, I would rather die than be forever unwanted, going from house to house with people who just want the money. Mainly, a woman has the right to choose what to do with her own body, and no man, government, or person with different beliefs should be able to take that away. Lastly, when an abortion is performed, the growing child isn't fully formed and, as such, shouldn't be considered a "human," per say. Even if you don't agree with this, you have to at least agree that you have the right to do whatever you want with your own body, and no one should be able to take that away.

Every person has the right to their body, whatever it contains or produces is the property of the person. Therefore, because of property rights, that person should have the right to exterminate or decide what happens to their body. Even if the child is five years, that child has the right to his or her body and what they want to do with it.

If we have the right to free speech, how can we not have the right to our bodies? To control what we want have done to it? If we don't allow that simple human right, we are no longer free and our right is being severely inhibited.

This does not serve in the best welfare of the population, as once we start to hinder our right to what we do with our bodies, it can hinder other progress made, such as our right to marry who we want, our right to refusing medical services... etc.

Abortion also serves in the best interest of the population, as there is a current overpopulation of people. Therefore, if more people have access and right to these service, we may see a stalling in overpopulation, which is of major concern to the planet.

Therefore, it is for these above reasons which I believe that abortion should be legal.

You should have every right to abort a baby as this is the life of ones own and you have no right to control the way one lives it. You do not know about what has happened in their life- are they under sixteen and pregnant while still being at school with an unwanted baby or have they even been a victim of sexual assault or rape and as a result are pregnant with the child of their rapist. Yes perhaps so and doing an act like this is inconsiderate and punishing someone further for something that is not their fault. If you disagree with me, it is quite concerning and your opinion will need changing by perhaps some research or listening to stories where rates as these are high.

Why does it matter what their reasons are? You are ceding ground that does not have to be given. If they have every right then they have every right. Period. If you really believe that then why bring up the secondary (weaker, conditional) justification?

The human organism does not become a person until it has the capacity for self-concept, so it is not murder to kill the unborn. Nor do I see any compelling reason to value the life of a non-person over the liberties of a person as a general rule. Moreover, there are no serious social repercussions insofar as allowing the killing of the unborn does not condone the killing of the born (especially the self-conceived born).

There should always be the ability to choose. If a pregnant woman does not want that child for whatever reason, she should not be forced to keep it. There doesn't need to be a good reason for a pregnant women to abort a fetus, it could be medical, it could be because they were raped or it could be because they just don't want the child, it really doesn't matter. I see and hear about too many kids who haven't had good parenting because their parents didn't want them but they couldn't get an abortion. No one should be forced into having a child they don't want or aren't ready for.

Usually people don't want a child because they can't support it. If this is the case then I would rather not have my child go through the suffering of living in poverty or going to a care home with foster parents. There are so many cases of foster parents abusing their children.

So you think God is wrong when in the Old Testament he commanded the complete wiping out of evil cultures, yet you think it's good for you to kill your own children? I guess you are that evil culture condemned to die, so you think nothing of killing your own children.

In the United States we have safe Haven laws, where people who have children and can't support them can drop them off at places like hospitals, police departments and fire stations with no questions asked. They do not owe any money for doing this

I say No, but to an extent. If a child could be removed from the mother and survive, be it on machines or not, then Yes that should be illegal. But say the mother was raped and in a month or two, she discovers she is pregnant from said rapist, the baby is no where near fully developed, then No it shouldn't be illegal for her to get an abortion.

Abortion should not be illegal because every person should have choices and that is especially true of people who have to deal with the choice of wanting a baby or not. If abortion clinics were banned you would take away that choice from them, and they might still attempt to get rid of the baby in a very dangerous way that could potentially kill or hurt them. Another thing is if abortion was illegal there is the matter, Who's going to help this person with healthcare? Hospitals expect you to hand over the cash even if you don't have it, and this is especially hard for people in the lower class. So, the baby is not protected and neither is the person who had the baby and never wanted it. So 2 actual lives would be at stake. Abortion should be legal because it is not anyone's choice to tell them to keep the baby or not.

No a self-incriminated confession to a crime cannot be/have proclamation as legal, this type of action places the burden of cost to the crime on the panel who makes the proclamation. It is a convert way to fund civil War as a self-incrimination is shared by the admittance to taking part in, With abortion this means taking part in a self-incriminating confession of murder.

A panel should have some informal constitutional separation from self-incrimination. This state is create by a wording such as Gender specific Amputation, or Female specific Amputation.

The issue of abortion is a religious test to hold political office. This understanding comes from the intellectual nature of the crimes as it is created by the use of a self-incriminating confession. As each confession requires its own impartial trial and not panel decision. Unless panel was advised or had knowledge of the protection given by separation of church and state,How it is used to make Constitutional separation from self-incriminating confession. Confessions of self admittance are not insured as legal. It was the diversion of tax funding away from constitutional separation of church and state that directs this crime as religious test to hold political office.As now there is a bribe made with payments to the public incriminating voters in a self-incrimination to a confession to murder and perjury.

Abort means to stop. Something aborted and not meant to be restarted is terminated. Meaning ended. This all adds up to self-incrimination.

I don't think Abortion is Murder. This is based what a fetus is, what makes a person a person; and what qualities a human requires in order for killing them to be illegal.

Saying that; the "debate" is relatively meaningless as those who have taken one side or the other aren't going to change.

What both sides can likely agree with is this:

- Fewer abortions are better than more abortions.

- Working towards the situation where no one needs or wants to chose abortion is preferable than having an ideological ping pong of it being made legal, then illegal, then legal again.

Realistically, the way to reduce abortions by the greatest amount, is to keep them legal and actually undermine the big financial, economic and social implications of unwanted pregnancy.

Childcare support, Maternity leave, regulations on work flexibility, and the ability to put a career on hold but go right back; detailed sex education and access to a wide range of contraception are going to "save more lives" from a practical reality standpoint than simply saying "We will force you to have that baby, and then not give a damn about the effects of poverty, social isolation, long term economic isolation have on either you or your baby which can well have a significant negative impact on you and your babies eventually happiness and wellbeing."

Till the time a child is inside the womb, it is directly dependent on the mother. If for personal reasons the mother decides not to host the baby anymore then that decision should be respected. She is responsible (along with the father) for bringing the child into the world and if they want to decide against that, then there is nothing wrong.

Maybe it was an accidental pregnancy.

Maybe there was a split between the parents.

Maybe they landed in a situation where their financial situation didn't allow for a child.

In any case the child won't get the care it deserves and may not grow up to be a responsible human being.

Also, considering the population growth, isn't it great that someone doesn't want to add more to the burden of the earth?

This reasoning is totally absurd and shows how much our country cares for a newborn life. Yes the baby's body resides in the mother's body but how does respecting one person's body justify the destroying of another's? If it was accidental or a split decision or a financial burden there's this thing called ADOPTION!!!! You don't need to destroy the baby because you feel it's an inconvienience. Really? Since when do we murder somebody JUST TO MAKE OURSELVES FEEL BETTER! It's so sad this is even an issue. Mother Theresa once said "Give the child to me. Don't kill the child. I will take any child whose mother would abort it". If only we all had that sentiment......